"Out of proportion"...that's funny. If you don't want war, don't ask for it by utilizing weapons of war against your neighbor. There's nothing more idiotic than provoking someone with a bigger stick, then whining about it when they bitch slap you back.

What else should they do?

Not respond out of proportion? Odd that one response is classified as out of proportion, but not the other. Not even getting into the whole fact the Arab nations were the ones going for the land allocated to the Palestine "nation" in the beginning.

Quote:

When an entire group of people have their farms and orchards and homes and neighborhoods mowed down and taken over ...

By Israel or the Arab nations? Where in Gaza is this happening? There are many historical aspects conveniently ignored in this approach. Waht of the risk to civillians from rocket fire? If a member of your family is killed or injured what would you want done then?

Quote:

What would any of us do? How would you respond if you were in their position?

So whatever they do is proportional response, but the response to that is not? It appears there is a bias here.

Quote:

And then you ask about that "bigger stick". Do we dare provoke someone with a "bigger stick'?

If we are not prepared to be struck by that stick, no.

Quote:

Really? What if the folk that want to participate in this conversation don't have a stick?

A discussion would not cause any problems, but shooting rockets, setting off bombs, and other acts of terrorism would be a problem.

Quote:

Should we then just "bitch-slap" them?

Only if they deserve it ... Would that be a proportional response or not?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Interesting to speculate on what negative thing the Palestinians ever did to America. Nothing that I can see. And we celebrate the conquest of their land by outsiders, a particularly chauvinistic group that call themselves Zionists(Of course within that group there are degrees of chauvinism with the more hard core religious ones now on the ascendancy). I guess this has something to do with guilt about the holocaust. The people in the region responsible for the holocaust aided and abetted by their kin across the sea assuage their guilt by making the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the holocaust pick up the cost.

Of course this is not new in history. Those who escaped the oppression of Europe proceeded to oppress and ethnically cleanse the Native Americans aided by their former oppressors who came to see its advantages.

There is a lot of self-righteous rationalizing but not much genuine morality to be gleaned from history it appears.

Interesting to speculate on what negative thing the Palestinians ever did to America. Nothing that I can see. And we celebrate the conquest of their land by outsiders, a particularly chauvinistic group that call themselves Zionists(Of course within that group there are degrees of chauvinism with the more hard core religious ones now on the ascendancy).

Odd the conquest of that same land by other Arab nations does not even bring about a comment. I find it difficult to condemn a nation which is attacked upon its formation by a larger group bent on the complete destruction, when that larger group also takes the land supposedly belonging to the Palestine peoples and that nation takes and returns territory from the larger groups.

Quote:

I guess this has something to do with guilt about the holocaust. The people in the region responsible for the holocaust aided and abetted by their kin across the sea assuage their guilt by making the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the holocaust pick up the cost.

No, it has to do with the land being taken by other Arabs and then lost in the attempt to destroy Israel. It also has a lot to do with the position of the Palestine government that Israel still does not have a right to exist. It is hard to justify feeling sorry for people who want to destroy a nation but want that nation to give them assistance in doing so.

Quote:

Of course this is not new in history. Those who escaped the oppression of Europe proceeded to oppress and ethnically cleanse the Native Americans aided by their former oppressors who came to see its advantages.

There is a lot of self-righteous rationalizing but not much genuine morality to be gleaned from history it appears.

I suppose it helps to ignore large portions of history. Where is the outrage for Jordan taking the West Bank from the Palestine peoples in 1948? They did eventually offer them Jordanian citizenship later on before they lost the territory to Israel in 1967. The same for Egypt and Gaza, except they never even offered Egyptian citizenship, but only military governorship.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Cheer leading the conquest and ethnic cleansing of a people who never did any harm to us I guess is one of those luxuries Americans can indulge in at a distance without major consequences although it's kind of costly and recruits for Jihadist groups. Lying is also part of the fun, like saying Israel has no partner for peace. Israel has turned down generous peace offers(The Saudi proposals) that the PLO and even Saddam Hussein signed on to.

Your bs is pretty much standard issue Wayne. Too bad your ilk weren't around defending Jews when Hitler was on the march. When it comes to dispossessing Palestinian of their homes and olive orchards then you all get excited - right? Is this an Israel first deal with you as in country of first loyalty, or maybe your into the rapture or possibly you work in the arms industry which has made a killing on keeping Israel saturated in arms?

This Israeli, former Knesset member, has something to say about the complexities of building peace in the region. He's not like some know nothing apologist for Israel's behavior, trotting out their predictable AIPAC approved responses.http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/ ... e-messiah/

Cheer leading the conquest and ethnic cleansing of a people who never did any harm to us I guess is one of those luxuries Americans can indulge in at a distance without major consequences although it's kind of costly and recruits for Jihadist groups. Lying is also part of the fun, like saying Israel has no partner for peace. Israel has turned down generous peace offers(The Saudi proposals) that the PLO and even Saddam Hussein signed on to.

You mean the proposal to retreat to the original mandate borders in return for peace .... just before Hamas killed 30 in an attack?

Quote:

Your bs is pretty much standard issue Wayne.

If you call pointing out the points conveniently removed from your posts BS, I suppose so. The truth is pretty much standard issue for me.

Quote:

Too bad your ilk weren't around defending Jews when Hitler was on the march.

I was not born then, but members of my family did serve to do that and more.

Quote:

When it comes to dispossessing Palestinian of their homes and olive orchards then you all get excited - right?

No, but it seems you do not either as long as it is a non-Israel based dispossession.

Quote:

Is this an Israel first deal with you as in country of first loyalty, or maybe your into the rapture or possibly you work in the arms industry which has made a killing on keeping Israel saturated in arms?

Nope, not in the least, but the fact you had to go there so quickly is telling about the strength of your position and beliefs.

Really? Blood thirsty is thinking they should be peaceful if they want peace? What a concept.

Quote:

This Israeli, former Knesset member, has something to say about the complexities of building peace in the region. He's not like some know nothing apologist for Israel's behavior, trotting out their predictable AIPAC approved responses.http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/10/ ... e-messiah/

It would seem that the Palestine peoples would have to first recognize the right for Israel to exist if a two state solution were ever to be tried, but then again some people are clueless when they ignore half of what is.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I doubt even the Israeli government would play the Israel-right-to-exist card seriously since Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state has been acknowledged many times by the Palestinian leadership as a negotiating necessity if not desire. A two state solution implies Israel's existence quite obviously. But the nonsubstantive resolution(Obviously they need some negotiating card) hangs around to give Zionist expansionists an excuse to not negotiate seriously.

And yes the 67 border would be the relevant basis for negotiations. Having seized 78% of the rest of Palestine and with the relevant UN resolutions supporting it I don't think that is unreasonable.

Having unwillingly supported with my taxes the seizure of Palestinian land and continued occupation I would nevertheless be willing to have my taxes used to help pay the cost of getting Israel's butt back on the other side of the border. Call it a damage fee for actions that my country was a full collaborator in.

I doubt even the Israeli government would play the Israel-right-to-exist card seriously since Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state has been acknowledged many times by the Palestinian leadership as a negotiating necessity if not desire.

I have to call BS on this since the charters of the organizations of leadership state otherwise and have NEVER been changed.

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

But a two state solution does not work in practice so far. The people of Gaza elected the Hamas to power, which have a charter detailing the destruction of Israel/

Quote:

But the nonsubstantive resolution(Obviously they need some negotiating card) hangs around to give Zionist expansionists an excuse to not negotiate seriously.

If one ignores the inconvenient facts about the history.

Quote:

And yes the 67 border would be the relevant basis for negotiations. Having seized 78% of the rest of Palestine and with the relevant UN resolutions supporting it I don't think that is unreasonable.

Except the plan called for the 1947 border to be the basis for negotiations. Do you not read your own references?

Quote:

Having unwillingly supported with my taxes the seizure of Palestinian land and continued occupation I would nevertheless be willing to have my taxes used to help pay the cost of getting Israel's butt back on the other side of the border. Call it a damage fee for actions that my country was a full collaborator in.

Maybe they could take some of those taxes and improve the education in the schools in your area, since there seem to be many flaws in history, current events, and logic.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, why you are so in denial about the relevant facts is beyond me but clearly you want nothing but further grinding down of the Palestinians and further expansion of Israel.

One party invaded and ethnically cleansed the other party and continue their illegal Settlement expansion. And when offered peace they refused it because they wanted to take more and more and more. You obviously have a stubborn loyalty to the hardline in the Israeli government and whatever rationale they want to trot out. In the long run the demographics don't work for Israel and so they guarantee continuing conflict in the region.

You may think you are a friend of Israel but you are really not. Any Israeli seriously dedicated to peace would tell you that.

By the way, if you did a little research on Einstein and his attitude toward Israel's treatment of the Palestinians you would have to conclude he would be on my side of the debate. I seldom have to stray from Israeli and Jewish sources to find full blown criticism of Israeli policies, both now and in the past. Even many Israeli Zionist supporters of Israeli expansionist policies argue its Machiavellian necessity and pooh pooh folks like you who try to give it moral, essentially defensive underpinnings.

Wayne, why you are so in denial about the relevant facts is beyond me but clearly you want nothing but further grinding down of the Palestinians and further expansion of Israel.

I am not in denial of anything other than the misrepresentation of the historical facts.

Quote:

One party invaded and ethnically cleansed the other party and continue their illegal Settlement expansion.

When exactly was this supposed to have happened? When the Arab nations invaded when Israel declared independence? When the Arab nations lost the lands in 1967? When the Arab nations finally gave up the claims on the land?

Quote:

And when offered peace they refused it because they wanted to take more and more and more.

You mean like when they gave back the Sinai for peace and then had to fight for it again? Like when they allowed the Gaza people to elect their own government and they elected a group whose goal is the destruction of Israel? Kind of hard to have peace when the weaker side wants to destroy the stronger side.

Quote:

You obviously have a stubborn loyalty to the hardline in the Israeli government and whatever rationale they want to trot out.

No, I have read quite a bit on the wars in the middle east, which included the various Israel/Arab conflicts. Unless and until the Palestine peoples really want peace there will be none.

Quote:

In the long run the demographics don't work for Israel and so they guarantee continuing conflict in the region.

You mean there would be peace if they just all died off or moved elsewhere?

Quote:

You may think you are a friend of Israel but you are really not. Any Israeli seriously dedicated to peace would tell you that.

I have no friendship for either party, but I do have a strong belief in the truth and what you have presented butchers the truth.

Quote:

By the way, if you did a little research on Einstein and his attitude toward Israel's treatment of the Palestinians you would have to conclude he would be on my side of the debate.

Which means nothing since he was not a political scientist and his opinion is countered by any other opinion. I find it odd that the treatment by the Palestinians is so easily ignored.

Quote:

I seldom have to stray from Israeli and Jewish sources to find full blown criticism of Israeli policies, both now and in the past.

I am sure you can find criticism of anything, especially when you seek it.

Quote:

Even many Israeli Zionist supporters of Israeli expansionist policies argue its Machiavellian necessity and pooh pooh folks like you who try to give it moral, essentially defensive underpinnings.

I suppose you can convince yourself that wanting to destroy Israel and all of the people living there is in some manner "moral", but it is not logical nor is it truthful.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I have no friendship for either party, but I do have a strong belief in the truth

Based on your comments I find that frankly unbelievable.

You mean like your claims the Palestinian leadership has "acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state many times"?

Quote:

Just as a test let's see if you can say one thing that favors the Palestinian side and criticizes Israel.

You mean something like Israel should not expand the settlements on the West Bank and should be more willing to constrict some of the existing settlements back as part of the establishment of an autonomous state of Palestine?

How about a test to see if you can provide evidence of your claim that is stronger than the evidence I have already provided?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Oslo sketched out a peace process with a two-phase timetable. During a five-year interim period, Oslo envisioned a series of step-by-step measures to build trust and partnership. Palestinians would police the territories they controlled, cooperate with Israel in the fight against terrorism, and amend those sections of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) charter that called for Israel's destruction. Israel would withdraw almost entirely from Gaza, and in stages from parts of the West Bank. An elected Palestinian Authority would take over governance of the territories from which Israel withdrew.

After this five-year interim period, negotiators then would determine a final peace agreement to resolve the thorniest issues: final borders (see map), security arrangements, Jerusalem, whether the Palestinians would have an independent state, Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and Palestinian refugees' claims to land and property left behind when they fled Israel.

My comment: The charter was never changed nor was there ever any real attempt to curb the attacks on Israel

1994

Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza and Jericho, the first step in the peace process. Israel remains responsible for Israelis and settlements in these areas; Palestinians are now responsible for public order and internal security for Palestinians, and will act to prevent terror against Israelis in the areas under their control. Some 5,000 Palestinian prisoners who have not participated in attacks against Israelis will be released.

1995

Signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, this was the second major step in the Oslo process. Israeli forces would withdraw from the six largest cities in the West Bank. Three percent of the West Bank territory -- which contained approximately one-third of its Palestinian population -- now came under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. Under Oslo II, the West Bank was to be divided into three areas: one under exclusive Palestinian control; one where Palestinians had civilian control and Israelis controlled security; and one area that would be controlled exclusively by Israel.

1997

After four months of difficult negotiations, Israel agreed to transfer control of the West Bank city of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority. Unlike earlier withdrawals from the West Bank, 20 percent of the city -- the central area where more than 400 Jewish settlers lived among 130,000 Palestinians -- would remain under Israeli control. Palestinians cheered the withdrawal, but Jewish settlers felt betrayed by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

1998

The agreement allowed for the building of an international airport in the Gaza Strip. Israel agreed to pull back from an additional 13 percent of the West Bank and to release 750 Palestinian security prisoners.(Ultimately, only half of the pull-back is done and only 250 prisoners are released.) The Palestinian Authority agreed to combat terrorist organizations, arrest those involved in terrorism, and to collect all illegal weapons and explosives.(Little or none of this is ever done.)

1999

Signed by Yasser Arafat and Israeli's new prime minister, Ehud Barak, this agreement outlined a bold framework and timetable for a "final status" peace agreement. It also listed further redeployments of Israel's forces in the territories: Within a few days, Israel was to transfer 7 percent of the West Bank from its total control to partial control by Palestinians; on Nov. 15, 5 percent more would be transferred; and on Jan. 20, 2000, a third transfer would take place. (By then 40 percent of the West Bank would be under partial or full Palestinian control.) Final-status negotiations would be due by mid-February 2000.

2000

Issues never before discussed at senior levels between Israelis and Palestinians -- Jerusalem, statehood, boundaries, refugees -- were put on the table. Barak and Clinton suggested a path-breaking plan permitting a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem. But the Palestinians criticized Barak for coming to Camp David with a proposal for dividing the West Bank they had already rejected. And,in their eyes, the Clinton/Barak plan would have left the new Palestinian state with significant loss of water and good land, almost split by Israeli annexation running east from Jerusalem, and with Israel getting roughly 9 percent of the West Bank. However, U.S. and Israeli officials contend that throughout the summit, the Palestinians rejected Israeli proposals while offering no proposal of their own. Publicly, both Clinton and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure to reach an agreement on a two-state solution.

2001

Two weeks after the negotiations at Taba, hard-liner Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister, defeating Barak in a landslide. Sharon had consistently rejected the Oslo peace process and criticized Israel's positions at Camp David and Taba.

The Palestinian intifada's cycle of violence continued and escalated. On March 29, 2002, after a suicide bomber killed 30 people, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield. Israel's troops re-entered Palestinian cities and refugee camps, hunting down terrorists and often leaving massive destruction in their wake.

Three months later, in mid-June 2002, two more suicide bombings struck Israel. Sharon announced Israel would immediately begin a policy of taking back land in the West Bank, and holding it, until the terror attacks stopped.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I have no friendship for either party, but I do have a strong belief in the truth

Based on your comments I find that frankly unbelievable.

You mean like your claims the Palestinian leadership has "acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state many times"?

By supporting a negotiated two state solution that is an obvious acknowledgement and yes that has been supported by many Palestinian leaders. Of course if you don't want serious negotiations you make the Palestinians abandon really the only negotiating card they bring to the table. The disingenuousness of this supposed obstacle is so obvious only sold out apologists for Israel take it seriously.

Just as a test let's see if you can say one thing that favors the Palestinian side and criticizes Israel.

You mean something like Israel should not expand the settlements on the West Bank and should be more willing to constrict some of the existing settlements back as part of the establishment of an autonomous state of Palestine?

If you believed that you would be kicking the Israeli government's butt for creating these obstacles to peace but you offer nothing but excuses and apologies. Also you know perfectly well that the real resolution establishes the 1967 red line as the border, with minor adjustments according to American backed UN Resolutions. Constricting a few settlements is nothing more than throwing a dog a bone and since you know it won't be accepted it amounts to conceding nothing while giving the appearance of compromise.

Frankly it is easier for me to understand Zionist obsessions for a Jewish state of their own given so much of Jewish history. What bugs me more is that the US citizenry should get behind a colonial policy which is not in its interest. Pissing off Arabs and folks all over the world and enthusiastically backing a recruitment source for Jihadists is not my idea of good policy. Romney's salivating sycophancy toward Israel mirrors what is wrong with American policies in that region.

I have no friendship for either party, but I do have a strong belief in the truth

Based on your comments I find that frankly unbelievable.

You mean like your claims the Palestinian leadership has "acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state many times"?

Dingo wrote:

By supporting a negotiated two state solution that is an obvious acknowledgement and yes that has been supported by many Palestinian leaders.

No, that is not an obvious acknowledgement. A clear statement of the right to exist would be an acknowledgement. A two state approach can just as easily be the first step in the creation of a single state that excludes Israel and the current occupants.

Quote:

Of course if you don't want serious negotiations you make the Palestinians abandon really the only negotiating card they bring to the table. The disingenuousness of this supposed obstacle is so obvious only sold out apologists for Israel take it seriously.

This is pure BS. If the people of Israel negotiate to give up so much territory they should expect the recognition of their right to exist as a nation as a basis for peace.

I sent Congresswoman Tsongas a response letter. It most likely was not the response she may have been hoping for. I told her that, having worked in Gaza, it is clear to me that recognition of Israel's Right to Exist would imply acceptance of the notion that Palestinians deserve to be treated as subhumans, a condition to which they are already subjected in violation of the Geneva Conventions of the U.N.

So the only way Gaza can negotiate is under the belief Israel has no right to exist and thus will never have peace. That is not much of a benefit for Israel to negotiate then is it?

Just as a test let's see if you can say one thing that favors the Palestinian side and criticizes Israel.

You mean something like Israel should not expand the settlements on the West Bank and should be more willing to constrict some of the existing settlements back as part of the establishment of an autonomous state of Palestine?

Quote:

If you believed that you would be kicking the Israeli government's butt for creating these obstacles to peace

If they were the only obstacles to peace I would be, but as they are not and the biggest obstacle to peace is the inability of the Palestine peoples to agree Irsrael has a right to even exist. If you try to negotiate with someone who believes you should be dead, can you trust them to do what they say or do you expect them to kill you at the first chance?

Quote:

but you offer nothing but excuses and apologies.

No, they are called facts. Now that you have asked me to point out something negative and then told me I "really" did not believe what I said because you are biased, where can the discussion go from here? Maybe I should take the position that you should not exist and see how well you can handle that approach?

Quote:

Also you know perfectly well that the real resolution establishes the 1967 red line as the border, with minor adjustments according to American backed UN Resolutions. Constricting a few settlements is nothing more than throwing a dog a bone and since you know it won't be accepted it amounts to conceding nothing while giving the appearance of compromise.

Given the offer of keeping only 9% of the West Bank was previously made, there is not much constriction necessary except for those who wish to have a Palestinian state instead of Israel.

Quote:

Frankly it is easier for me to understand Zionist obsessions for a Jewish state of their own given so much of Jewish history. What bugs me more is that the US citizenry should get behind a colonial policy which is not in its interest.

It is not a colonial policy. The territory was never legally claimed and the governments which occupied it from 1948 through 1967 dropped their claims. The territory was captured due to a there being a state of war and military action associated with said war.

Quote:

Pissing off Arabs and folks all over the world and enthusiastically backing a recruitment source for Jihadists is not my idea of good policy.

Some are pissed at the existence of Israel, any secular nation, or of any nation not holding certain beliefs.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

(Slight alteration in the beginning, without changing content, to meet forum embed limitations).

Wayne - I have no friendship for either party, but I do have a strong belief in the truth.

Dingo - Based on your comments I find that frankly unbelievable.

Quote:

You mean like your claims the Palestinian leadership has "acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state many times"?

Dingo wrote:

By supporting a negotiated two state solution that is an obvious acknowledgement and yes that has been supported by many Palestinian leaders.

No, that is not an obvious acknowledgement.

It's like 2+2=4. It's so obvious I'm not even going to argue the point.

Quote:

Quote:

Of course if you don't want serious negotiations you make the Palestinians abandon really the only negotiating card they bring to the table. The disingenuousness of this supposed obstacle is so obvious only sold out apologists for Israel take it seriously.

This is pure BS. If the people of Israel negotiate to give up so much territory they should expect the recognition of their right to exist as a nation as a basis for peace.

And I've said before the right to exist business is handled as part of the peace negotiation. Trying to use this nonissue as a means to sabotage serious negotiation stops here.

Quote:

Quote:

Also you know perfectly well that the real resolution establishes the 1967 red line as the border, with minor adjustments according to American backed UN Resolutions. Constricting a few settlements is nothing more than throwing a dog a bone and since you know it won't be accepted it amounts to conceding nothing while giving the appearance of compromise.

Given the offer of keeping only 9% of the West Bank was previously made, there is not much constriction necessary except for those who wish to have a Palestinian state instead of Israel.

How about if I occupy your house and then we negotiate a solution. I take your house and you can have the yard.

Quote:

Quote:

Frankly it is easier for me to understand Zionist obsessions for a Jewish state of their own given so much of Jewish history. What bugs me more is that the US citizenry should get behind a colonial policy which is not in its interest.

It is not a colonial policy.

You're wrong. It was a colony of Britain which then under the Balfour Declaration declared Palestine a Jewish homeland under the pressure of strong Zionist influence and their own colonial ambitions. To make a long narrative short, with Britain pulling out the occupying Zionists simply picked up the ball called themselves a state and went into expansionist mode running off 700,000 Palestinian in a monstrous act of ethnic cleansing.

Quote:

Quote:

Pissing off Arabs and folks all over the world and enthusiastically backing a recruitment source for Jihadists is not my idea of good policy.

Some are pissed at the existence of Israel, any secular nation, or of any nation not holding certain beliefs.

Before the European Zionists came along and started setting up shop in Palestine there was nothing comparable to European treatment of the Jews on the part of the Muslims.